Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Laws Question? Ask here!

1…6667697172…92

Comments

  • #2042
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    I really hate this idea that by not calling offenses at a ruck, a ref is letting a game flow. Games would be much better served by stamping out messing on the deck, which would let teams get quick ball and take advantage of fractured defensive lines. It's one of the prime reasons defenses are so smothering nowadays, ball is slowed at will, usually illegally, and thus the defending team can reset their line.


  • #2043
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    I really hate this idea that by not calling offenses at a ruck, a ref is letting a game flow. Games would be much better served by stamping out messing on the deck, which would let teams get quick ball and take advantage of fractured defensive lines. It's one of the prime reasons defenses are so smothering nowadays, ball is slowed at will, usually illegally, and thus the defending team can reset their line.
    How much do you stamp out though? At every ruck there is possibly/probably numerous infringements by either ball carrier, tackler, arriving players on both sides be that entry, holding on etc. You cant simply just penalise everything or its a ****fest. You have to take so much more into account


  • #2044
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 34,074 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    I really hate this idea that by not calling offenses at a ruck, a ref is letting a game flow.

    Indeed - the continuous slow nature of ruck ball was utterly anathema to a flowing game.


  • #2045
    Dave_The_Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,928 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    Neil3030 wrote: »
    Are you referring to him pinging McGrath? That was a different situation - one where we were ahead, and were trying to kill off the game. But again, it falls under his general philosophy of interpreting the laws in a way that encourages teams to play rugby. So if you're behind, and need a penalty, it needs to be clear cut; if you're ahead and need to recycle a few times to kill off the game, you better be squeaky clean.

    I'm not saying he's right, or wrong, just that he is consistent once you factor in the context, and teams should (and I suspect do) know that.

    My problem in that particular instance was that he wasn't consistent over the course of the game, or even over the course of the last few minutes. NZ did precisely what McGrath was pinged for a minute or two later, and he didn't ping them for it.

    Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and dont' necessarily disagree. I just don't like that at some times (like the ones you mention) some rules are implemented more so than other times. And I say that while acknowledging that at any given ruck you could probably blow up for a half dozen reasons if you really wanted to.


  • #2046
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    How much do you stamp out though? At every ruck there is possibly/probably numerous infringements by either ball carrier, tackler, arriving players on both sides be that entry, holding on etc. You cant simply just penalise everything or its a ****fest. You have to take so much more into account

    Maybe change the rules to make it illegal to get hands on the ball, insist on a proper ruck over, like it was back in the day? Penalise early and often for obvious efforts at slowing ball illegally. I don't discount the difficulty of doing so, but throwing the hands up and saying that it's too much is a cop out.

    Might lead to games to a spate of ****ty games due to high penalty counts, but the hope would be that teams would get the idea and adapt.


  • Advertisement
  • #2047
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    How much do you stamp out though? At every ruck there is possibly/probably numerous infringements by either ball carrier, tackler, arriving players on both sides be that entry, holding on etc. You cant simply just penalise everything or its a ****fest. You have to take so much more into account

    Basketball style after 3rd breakdown offence = YC. Its too random when a YC is produced from ref to ref.

    Raynal today didnt warn england at all and they gave away 4 or 5 penalties within 10m of their own line. But Italy gave away 4 or 5 penalties and he warns them. At one point Itoje just lay between the Italian 9 and the ball and the ref did nothing

    IMO thats what ruins the game. There is a complete lack of consistency.


  • #2048
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Maybe change the rules to make it illegal to get hands on the ball, insist on a proper ruck over, like it was back in the day? Penalise early and often for obvious efforts at slowing ball illegally. I don't discount the difficulty of doing so, but throwing the hands up and saying that it's too much is a cop out.

    Might lead to games to a spate of ****ty games due to high penalty counts, but the hope would be that teams would get the idea and adapt.
    I just dont see the point of doing that and it isnt necessary. Change the laws how? You penalise people for clear and obvious infringements and that generally happens. What im saying is far from a cop out though.
    There needs to be continuity or else the sport suffers. When you say a proper ruck over what do you want?


  • #2049
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    I just dont see the point of doing that and it isnt necessary. Change the laws how? You penalise people for clear and obvious infringements and that generally happens. What im saying is far from a cop out though.
    There needs to be continuity or else the sport suffers. When you say a proper ruck over what do you want?

    Force a team to win a ruck by clearing out the opposition by driving past the ball and making it illegal to try and grab the ball on the deck.


  • #2050
    Bazzo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Force a team to win a ruck by clearing out the opposition by driving past the ball and making it illegal to try and grab the ball on the deck.

    You want to completely remove fetching from the game? It's become a fundamental part of it...


  • #2051
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Bazzo wrote: »
    You want to completely remove fetching from the game? It's become a fundamental part of it...

    It seems more often a mechanism for slowing down the game illegally than anything.


  • Advertisement
  • #2052
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Force a team to win a ruck by clearing out the opposition by driving past the ball and making it illegal to try and grab the ball on the deck.
    But that changes things completely and doesnt make the game better. Why should you have to completely clear a ruck to win the ball. The ruck is a contest and having to drive past the ball leads to loitering and blocking which affects the contest.
    This is better discussed
    here


  • #2053
    Neil3030
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Plus I'd imagine the scrum-half's job instantly becomes the most perilous on the field, if he's reaching into a melee of Riverdancing hippos at every ruck...


  • #2054
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    But that changes things completely and doesnt make the game better. Why should you have to completely clear a ruck to win the ball. The ruck is a contest and having to drive past the ball leads to loitering and blocking which affects the contest.
    This is better discussed
    here

    Might be wrong, but was that not the rule back in the day?


  • #2055
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,475 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Maybe change the rules to make it illegal to get hands on the ball, insist on a proper ruck over, like it was back in the day? Penalise early and often for obvious efforts at slowing ball illegally. I don't discount the difficulty of doing so, but throwing the hands up and saying that it's too much is a cop out.

    Might lead to games to a spate of ****ty games due to high penalty counts, but the hope would be that teams would get the idea and adapt.

    They tried that a few years ago in mitre 10 rugby in new Zealand.
    It was thrown out quite quickly.

    http://www.thesilverfern.com/topic/919/new-mitre-10-cup-laws/87


  • #2056
    Flincher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 686 ✭✭✭Flincher


    Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »
    My problem in that particular instance was that he wasn't consistent over the course of the game, or even over the course of the last few minutes. NZ did precisely what McGrath was pinged for a minute or two later, and he didn't ping them for it.

    Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and dont' necessarily disagree. I just don't like that at some times (like the ones you mention) some rules are implemented more so than other times. And I say that while acknowledging that at any given ruck you could probably blow up for a half dozen reasons if you really wanted to.

    Its often my main source of frustration about Owens. In the name of game management, he treats identical situations completely differently depending on the time of the game. Owens' will often penalise a team for going off their feet if they are trying to run down the clock by picking and going, but he's generally lax on attacking teams going off their feet.

    His job is to apply the laws of the game consistently over 80 mins, not force teams to play positive rugby by changing his interpretation to suit. I know its not great tv if a team wants to pick and go to run down the clock, but Owens shouldn't treat that situation any differently to a team trying to play champagne rugby.


  • #2057
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    They tried that a few years ago in mitre 10 rugby in new Zealand.
    It was thrown out quite quickly.

    http://www.thesilverfern.com/topic/919/new-mitre-10-cup-laws/87

    From reading that, it seems the main thing causing issues with respect to rucks was players fly hacking the ball out of the pile and the change to allow players to join the breakdown from any angle, not just through the "gate".

    Kicking the ball out of the ruck was prohibited and players are required to come through the gate at the minute. Seems to me, that this would work given the current rules.


  • #2058
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,475 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    From reading that, it seems the main thing causing issues with respect to rucks was players fly hacking the ball out of the pile and the change to allow players to join the breakdown from any angle, not just through the "gate".

    Kicking the ball out of the ruck was prohibited and players are required to come through the gate at the minute. Seems to me, that this would work given the current rules.

    The biggest issue was the fact the contest was removed. Defences just fanned out and space was removed from the game, leading to less tries, which was why world rugby didn't continue with it.

    Rugby is all about the contest.
    If you want non contested rucks there is already a version of the game out there with it.


  • #2059
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What is the benefit of claiming it was a HIA rather than a knee injury?

    edit: its so they could use a sub


  • #2060
    A2LUE42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,693 ✭✭✭A2LUE42


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What is the benefit of claiming it was a HIA rather than a knee injury?

    Injury Sub, no replacement allowed, as all subs used.
    HIA, Replacement allowed.


  • #2061
    jacothelad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,071 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    So players lying offside, not staying on their feet, clearing out beyond the ruck, these are hallmarks of a well reffed breakdown?

    He doesn't have an interpretation, he simply ignores the offenses.

    As to the language issue, how is it unreasonable to expect an employee at the top level of his sport to have a basic ability to communicate with those he refs? How challenging would it be to parse out simple phrases in French and Italian? I've noticed Barnes, for example, is quite capable of giving guidance in French.
    So he would also need to be up to speed in Georgian, Romania, Fijian, Samoan, Afrikaans, Swahili and the lingua franca of New Zealanders.....:D


  • Advertisement
  • #2062
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    To continue the topic on the ruck, if you have a case where a team is simply fanning out rather than contesting the ruck, surely the answer is pick and goes to force them to stay tighter and/or try and win the ruck.

    I don't see it being any different to the current situation tbh, teams typically will either have the tackler look to slow ball by holding on or lying offside, or send in another player to attempt the same. By prohibiting hands in the ruck, you should encourage the production of quick ball, allowing for the attacking team to take advantage of defensive misalignment.


  • #2063
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    jacothelad wrote: »
    So he would also need to be up to speed in Georgian, Romania, Fijian, Samoan, Afrikaans, Swahili and the lingua franca of New Zealanders.....:D

    Hardly, but a working grasp of the language for the worlds biggest rugby market hardly seems to asking too much, no?


  • #2064
    .ak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Hardly, but a working grasp of the language for the worlds biggest rugby market hardly seems to asking too much, no?

    AFAIK English is the official language of Rugby Union. i.e if various different speaking languages are used by the players then English is the default language of the officials.

    Anyway I think it's a bit mad to expect a WRU ref to speak French...


  • #2065
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    .ak wrote: »
    AFAIK English is the official language of Rugby Union. i.e if various different speaking languages are used by the players then English is the default language of the officials.

    Anyway I think it's a bit mad to expect a WRU ref to speak French...

    Is it though? We expect French and Italian refs to be functional in English, why is it ridiculous to expect the same standard for English speaking refs?


  • #2066
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Is it though? We expect French and Italian refs to be functional in English, why is it ridiculous to expect the same standard for English speaking refs?

    Because rather than expecting people to learn 4 or 5 different languages we can just tell everyone to learn the same language and let them spend the rest of their time worrying about actual rugby.


  • #2067
    .ak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Is it though? We expect French and Italian refs to be functional in English, why is it ridiculous to expect the same standard for English speaking refs?

    Because there has to be one nominated language and across the various countries that play rugby I'd imagine English is the most spoken... Atleast in the professional playing countries.


  • #2068
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Because rather than expecting people to learn 4 or 5 different languages we can just tell everyone to learn the same language and let them spend the rest of their time worrying about actual rugby.

    Until you get to an important match where one team might not speak or understand English, who earn the ire of a ref because he thinks they aren't following his instructions. for instance, continuing to contest at a ruck when he's calling for them to leave it, lost etc.


  • #2069
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,764 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    .ak wrote: »
    Because there has to be one nominated language and across the various countries that play rugby I'd imagine English is the most spoken... Atleast in the professional playing countries.

    France is the biggest rugby market in the world, games are not conducted through english. How many players would be functional in English?

    Everyone here would agree that managing the ref is a huge part of the game, seems a touch unfair if one team is incapable of communicating with the ref is all.


  • #2070
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    To continue the topic on the ruck, if you have a case where a team is simply fanning out rather than contesting the ruck, surely the answer is pick and goes to force them to stay tighter and/or try and win the ruck.

    I don't see it being any different to the current situation tbh, teams typically will either have the tackler look to slow ball by holding on or lying offside, or send in another player to attempt the same. By prohibiting hands in the ruck, you should encourage the production of quick ball, allowing for the attacking team to take advantage of defensive misalignment.
    Yeah. Just think to England Italy last year i know the law has since changed but its up to teams to adapt. By prohibiting hands in the ruck at all you are preventing a fair contest for the ball and that isnt right or good for the sport.
    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    France is the biggest rugby market in the world, games are not conducted through english. How many players would be functional in English?

    Everyone here would agree that managing the ref is a huge part of the game, seems a touch unfair if one team is incapable of communicating with the ref is all.
    At top level in top 14 quite a lot these days. Its hard to change anything as you cant really expect referees to be required to speak french or another language to an adequate level. Its far easier to use english when its the language of virtually every major world nation. Do you see it in soccer or other sports? Does rugby need to be different?


  • Advertisement
  • #2071
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,147 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    This seems like a dubious debate because even the most meat-headed forwards in rugby are going to be able to understand the very few common English phrases that a ref will be likely to throw at them anyway - "leave it", "tackle", "maul" - especially from the context of the game.


Advertisement
Advertisement